There is a phenomenon that has taken hold on the many divisional fractures that comprise the U.S., and that phenomenon is, optimistically, in a slump in spite of the imperialistic venture into what’s observably known as neurotic American exceptionalism. This embarrassing letdown is embodied in the fat-rolls-in-the-skin of HR-failure, Kim Underwood; the saggy, wrinkly-epidermis of Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg; the human-accident, Betsy Devos; the proverbially-stained white sheets adorned by Cindy Hyde-Smith–the list goes on.
The American adjective, professional, is a code word that lends a nod to the dirt-covered essence of learning to make exceptions for the white [condition]; not the beleaguered. Those, in society today, whom are under attack–under attack for their character, under attack for their credibility, under attack for their legacies, under attack for their intelligence, under attack for their positions of challenging their white counterparts’ “privilege”–are having a difficult time trying to find the alternative to the aforementioned adjective because doing so would give them a definition to lean on. “To be professional“ is akin to putting on clothes too big or too small for your frame and yet, you convince yourself that the clothes fit. In other words, people get too caught up in taking on the persona of someone–or something else–in order to fit into the socially-engineered categories parameterized by rulers of code and ethic. The misanthropic, the harborers of the single-digit I.Q., the self-loathing, the chemically-imbalanced…are all defenseless. Professional is a zeitgeist ambition masquerading as a cultural perception set to establish individualized, disaffected histories.
If we are to interpret the underpinnings of “being professional“, and take them to heart, we’ll find ourselves back at square one only inundated with more all-American illusions of grandeur. Some would think that the antidote to this perpetuated illness is “to be woke”–and that affirmation rests on a pedestal of delusion. That’s quite the vicarious predicament, but the truth is bitter to the tongue. The American (read: U.S.) state of mind, as pedestrian as it ever will be, is only satiated when met by a fulfilled desire, making a life experience play-out like a vigilante film classic from the 1970s–a rebuke to liberal sanctimony that serendipitously gratifies red-white-and-blue heroism.
I would presume that those who willingly participate in this board game are cognizant of the superficialities that, themselves, are governed by principles overseen by an existential energy dedicated to ensuring that all players are either chastised or rewarded accordingly–if you follow the rules substantiated. You know, by being professional.
Obedient is the sister-slave adjective to professional since both would classify an individual foolish enough to fall for the folly that sets the stage upon which the controlled settings are already in place as far as society, law, culture and justice go. Some find being obedient to be almost an anachronistic delight like Hartke on a vibraphone. Personally, I identify “being obedient” no different than “being professional” as codes of social normality. Following the norm with a masochistic tendency to never sway from the path has become so deeply embedded that to stray from that norm one would have to “dig straight up” to reach a new level of comprehension. Obedience is a composite of rules that are followed by people who harbor a crazy masochist deep within the fibers of their very spirit and it’s all because they actually get some sort of perverted pleasure out of getting mentally whipped.
Something that I did not reveal about myself in “The Definition of Desmond” is that I cannot retain information from what people tell me–I learn mostly from what I’m shown. Most likely, the root of this is from childhood. During my elementary years in school, I had a difficult time with memorization (this is also the same time when the unlearning process began to set-in), so later on in life, I came to the realization that memorization is not the way that I should go about learning (right before I graduated from high school). Truthfully, memorization is pointless. Ask any doctor. Of course their are subject matter that some doctors are required to remember, but memorization [of data] is an unfamiliar object. The reason why doctors are doctors is that they have enough experience to make sense of the data that they are getting, and the reason why people have doctors is that people know that the critical thing isn’t knowledge. If a doctor is ill, they have another doctor to go see and the reason why is because you’d want someone else to do the critical thinking since you’re not in the mood to do so yourself. No individual has the right actual knowledge to handle every single situation. It might seem like a strange and odd statement to make, but the thought experiment would state that a good mathematician would be strongly against memorization as well. Perhaps.
Back to me–and how I tend to “think”–without context [meaning, without any documentation], I will not be able retain any information. The way people (relatable humans) memorize an assortment of things (i.e., sports, certain lyrics and other arbitrary information) is in the context by which the information is communicated. Without that, people will forget the information as soon as they memorize it. Being professional has hidden indications–its own curriculum by which “you had better not stray from“. A shot in the dark would imply that being professional is a code of manner by which to behave so that one would know what to do [or not to do] when they freeze under a high-stress situation. Would you call a politician a professional? Not a professional liar; just a professional.
Politicians can count. When someone counts, they are exhibiting that they are capable of staying within the societal confines defined as being professional. For most, it feels good to talk to a politician because a politician knows what to say just to make you feel good. That falls within the context of being professional whether you’re a politician or a customer service representative. Saying things in efforts of enticement is a form of being professional. Women who are mentally and emotionally abusive towards men do this every single day. Just ask Kanye.
I’m not joining the circus of those who have chosen to knock-on Kim K., I’m not. We live in a world where representation, or how you choose to comport yourself, is no longer the judging factor since the veil of private sex secrets are no longer relevant. However, as a woman, Kim exhibits the most outstanding “talent” that all women harbor naturally–and that is the exceptionally-exquisite manner of professional deception. Harvard should offer a PhD program in her honor. But in all seriousness, I’m not sitting here touting Kim as an intellectual or anything of that nature–what I’m stating is her recent adoption of the concurrent political women-roar that has enthralled the country–or, the world for that matter–and that’s the deceptive manner of creating a past that never occurred (i.e., what Cosby went through). In 2019, you can expect more cases in which women will be taking advantage of men who are vulnerable. There just aren’t that many cautionary tales left.
There comes a time when one will just have to fess up and admit that to be professional equates to having one’s mind made up. I’m of the firm belief that being professional isn’t necessary for prosperity nor survival. Personally, I do not think that there are too many women standing on the side of false and willful accusation while working in the capacity of positions that most would deem as professional (i.e., Mary Barra), it’s just that the general public does not have the wherewithal to confront the cheek before it becomes a full-effective affront. There is an aspect to life that’s a lot like chess: rather than spend time trying to conjure up a grand argument, you simply move the pieces on the chessboard to where you want them to be so that you get what you want. That’s what Kim’s doing.
You also have to understand that there is an emotional-tie to life’s politics. More money in life might be a good thing–in the abstract sense–but, are you really going to motivate someone to get out of their chair and do something? Because if you do, then you understand how corporate strategy works. More than an opportunist, Kim K. is the type of woman who’ll express, “I see this…“, and then a light [in her head] clicks.
Professionalism is an improper excuse for the hanger-on Boomer generation to keep looking back to the 1950s in hopes of disguising how ill-equipped they were to deal with contemporary social issues. Like bathing or having sex with someone over the age of five.
X marks the spot…
North Sentinel Island isn’t necessarily known as a haven for high-pressure marketing for white boys aptly named Cody; but it certainly can be a resort for the downtrodden and socially unacceptable retired military-type that “just can’t seem to fit-in” [with civilians]. You’re a sharpshooter, you white Dwight Howard-ass mawfucka? Go get ya’ skills tested to the max by some testy Africans-residing-in-the-Bay-of-Bengal. Trust me, you’ll come to the realization of the meaning of life when yours is swiped from out of you–with the swiftness too.
Ambivalence takes up absolute zero residence in the hearts of the Sentinelese, which is witnessed by quick decision-making prowess of the native folk that bears key to the evidence that these are not primitive people. Sure, Homo Habilis had enough synapses panning the impulse in their minds to make a move when resources turned up absent and they had to make way to an area where resources again amounted plentiful–but the Sentinelese ain’t goin’ nowhere. There’s nowhere for them to escape to when met with human limitations.
I stand with King Flex on his assertion of the inner-linings of the magnanimous forestry covering 90% of the magnificent island–that it’s substantially booby-trapped solely for the protection of the Sentinelese people, who, by the way, are demonstrating the behavior that the Kemetians should have abided by when their land was invaded by the Hyksos.
This is Fear of a Black Planet, for real for real.
“Typically, whenever I enter a pitch meeting or when I go and interact with VCs at other firms, I tend to be the only one that looks like myself.”—Adina “I CONSIDER MYSELF AFRICAN-AMERICAN” Tecklu
Immigrants, huh? How surprising. What’s not all too surprising are the articles of clothing she’s wearing in the video. Native American-themed garb? Immigrants is a code-word for non-Black. Blacks are the only non-immigrant group in America. What she’s implying, specifically to white supremacist venture capitalists (i.e., her employer), is “Don’t worry about me. I will never invest in a Black-controlled startup venture..”.
Adina’s also a board member of BLCK VC, which is not a Black-oriented venture capital firm (which is what it SHOULD be); instead, it’s a collective of “unemployed” black venture capitalists [“unemployed” is the operand]. I say “unemployed”, not to imply that these VCs are not working but as it’s implied on their website, they are trying to garner up 400 black venture capitalists by the year 2024 who will be willing to go and work for White-controlled/White-owned venture capital firms. This is not revolutionary; it’s 21st-century begging. Panting for crumbs.
Here’s the thing: you don’t have to be Black in order to be considered a “Black” investor. A wealthy Chinese man who decides to invest in, say, Hexagon Lavish®, would be considered a “Black” investor simply because of the fact they made the humble decision to invest their money in a revolutionary startup that’s led by a heteronormative Black male. Also, it shows an effort of progressing the Black-cause. Black and White are diametrically opposed to one another not only because of color; but because the former constitutes a conditional experience and the latter expressed by way of “an attitude“. Being Black is static; never changing. But, there are “waivers”, and I just imparted on one of them. When someone considers their self labeled as a compound adjective (i.e., African-American), they are not subjecting to the same exact conditions that governs the experience of all Black people [the world over], rather they are going through the gamut of trying to “stand out” from the rest. So, one shouldn’t be shocked when they hear typical garble lethargically launched from the tongue of, say, an Adina Tecklu, stating on how she comports herself whenever she’s around people who don’t look like her. In today’s socio-political environment, when you have people like United States senator, Cindy Hyde-Smith [still breathing], Adina Tecklu, someone who phenotypically exhibits the unchanging characteristics notably attributed to being Black, should not be so hesitant or ashamed to be Black. “Consider” is a slap-in-the-face styled remark since it does not denote any relation to one’s actual life and/or experience. We’re officially back in Jim Crow America, you can’t consider yourself Black and think you have your choices of safe spaces when those who target you do so because you are Black.
You aren’t a “Black” investor if you aren’t investing primarily in Black-owned/Black-controlled business ventures.
My issue isn’t with celebrities necessarily, because some of them do indeed invest in startups that they seemingly have some sort of commonality with, however, for the so-called “Black” celebrities, I see little room for an excuse. Seeing the likes of Nas, Kanye West, Snoop Dogg and whomsoever throwing their money into Lyft, Dropbox, Coinbase and so on, only proves my point about investors showing their faith in startups and companies that are only concerned with addressing issues at the surface. Personally, I’m not impressed with ventures of that nature since they’re only able to attempt to “solve” problems of the known-kind. There’s no money in “solving” problems of the known-kind; the money’s in the unknown. A startup that isn’t afraid to tussle with “the impossible” (according to one investor) doesn’t see uncertainty as an obstacle or a stumbling block. After all of this time dealing with this exact issue, concerning funding, I’m actually convinced that Black investors really do not take this investing thing seriously. Someone dedicates precious time in orchestrating a menagerie of the absolute best minds influence can buy, manage to come up with a smoking gun observation…and these guys want to flake. An actual investor would see the promise behind informational interpretation and be willing to invest a substantial amount of money because he’s convinced that the promise would turn out the other way. Instead, your so-called “Black” investors want to engage in acid questions about “passion” and, if the main driving force of your venture is “passion”, in the end, you’ll get nothing out of it except quaint satisfaction.
Hexagon Lavish® is enthralled that we have to make do with the fact that we live in an imperfect world. What keeps me motivated is the fact that I’m satisfied in knowing that I may not be the absolute best founder that ever existed–and I keep going at it. One investor that my team and I spoke with recently stated that we are “smarter than everyone else“. If that’s true, then why did that investor not make an investment in us. You hear all the time that investors invest in people, so if we’re smarter than everyone else, why would you not back-up your words after making such an acclaim? This is from a “black” investor, too.
If memory serves me correctly, didn’t I make a video over a year ago where I distinctively delineated between “smart” and intelligent? I prefer intelligent; PIR is “intelligent design“, not “sexy”, intelligent. Besides, if we’re “smarter than everyone else” then why would you not make an investment? Wouldn’t you, as an investor, feel as if you’ve made a sound decision by making an investment in a team that you have deemed as being “smarter than everyone else“? This was the observation from that same aforementioned “black” investor too.
Much like their white counterparts, so-called “Black” investors are frightened of the unknown and will immediately categorize PIR under the label of unknown and sit back and watch us end-up forgotten and forsaken. Unknown does not lend credence to being unknowable and Hexagon Lavish® has already submitted evidence to the contrary aplenty. So you shouldn’t be afraid to make the move. Make the move, mawfucka.
Avoid the skiddy…
In today’s world, we’ve allowed inhumanity to lay-off the proverbial chill-pill and thrill on its back until vanity is savored. The avant-garde narrative sensationalism has embedded itself in the skin of the newly ambiguous, wounded heroic repellant; it’s an experimentation. A misanthropic maestro the likes of a Steve Jobs (dead) is an inspirational ghost that encourages the Millennial viewpoint that they are still the target of global disdain because of their love of sharp-cornered soap used in prison. If you bask in an insufferably privileged existence, enjoy it while it lasts ’cause the tempered flatline signals the future for this irresponsible snowflake generation. Today’s individual conflates any moral-based life lesson with debauchery, care-free “existing” and other assortments of fleshing-out hypocrisy and getting to live the next day to talk about it.
The bio-politics that governs the heart of the body-LGBTQ, which is easily manipulated with quick, priapic compulsion, have weaved a web of deception under the guise of prissy, puritanical precision. Bannered by gender conflict, confusion and self-hatred, the “movement” has taken on white supremacy’s common victim [only seen as a “villain”]–heteronormative Black men. Their disdain for a manufactured animalistic antagonism is telling, but the soy milk-infused males and females think it’s best to achieve “agency” by locking targets on the heterosexuality of [Black] men primarily. The “movement” is an exercise in sadism cluttered with professional hookers, androgynous single mothers, transgendered steel workers masquerading as male-humans, retired military latinas named Lupita and Dulce and so forth. Their sad stories only serve the purpose of setting up the pretext of exploitation of their very own social vulnerabilities. This is more than just simple “role reversal”; we’re talking about male-humans engaged in self-promotion as prostitutes while the females masculinize themselves for the “greater cause”. Their insistence on sharing themselves with humanity seems null and void as all it’ll ever do is complicate the future more than it already is–should there ever be a paralyzing change to occur in the game of identity-politics by way condescending, politically-correct propaganda that doesn’t come-off as sort of self-congratulatory.
So, how did this “movement” become a beacon for sentimentalizing victimization? The answer is manifold, but a quick observation would bring one to the viewpoint that “highway robbery” of the Black experience is the clear, concise and over-correct aspect since the “movement” is as much a copy; it is as artificial as Word documents on a PC. The Black experience is born-authentic; the only experience one can define as singular in the Americas. LGBTQ is a sick expressionist’s artistic twist failing at its attempt to draw energy from the pre-existing conditions under which the predicaments hover above the heads of victims of white supremacy. Acclimated to nothing more than a fecal skid mark, the LGBTQ “movement” is mental instability + social dysfunction masquerading as “serious business”. It is a slice of panache and therefore only survived by pop culture. Personalized as “psychodrama” collected amongst bodies of individuals who fall on one accord with each other, the LGBTQ has played as a guise for white supremacist agenda and has undermined the Black experience to an nth degree now cyclically-morphed into a merry-go-round of ideological chaos.
“I do feel that there is a difference between gay and the LGBTQ ‘movement’; what that difference is, I haven’t the slightest clue since my heteronormative orientation cannot define nor observe what that difference would be in particular.”
This “movement” is exploited to the general masses as meaningful when in actuality it’s just a preview of the world abandoned and bereft of effective advertisement. Advertising is its own world, really; a world where bait-and-switch occurs faster than the human retina can register. What makes advertising effective is the fact that an “ad” isn’t restricted to just someone’s internet experience. To test this assertion, have some company put up an ad of Michelle Obama passing out candy to “gender-confused” children and see the effect in contrast to an “ad” featuring Rachel Maddow (and her K.D. Lang-hairstyle) appeasing after-school American children with a Dr. Seuss short-tale. The vulgarity from the unbridled force of the aforementioned exhibition of bad politics would be telling since the cynicism is straight (pun intended) comical. The image defines the moment; and the image of two women (the former who largely is not depicted as having any association with the “movement” and the latter who’s proudly gay) establishing a seemingly harmless relationship between themselves and “advertised innocence” (children) effectively shows you two different perspectives married by one overly-domineering agenda–and that agenda is LGBTQ-sparked. Partly spiritual, the other half partly racial, the “ad” is an example of the wall of separation is only to be “broken down” under conditions particular to the sponsors. If the sponsors want to convey an underlying message that the “movement” desires to compromise the image of, say, Michelle Obama, then that is what will be communicated [under the guise of children player-participating as the “innocence”] as the definitive meaning of the “ad”. Society says that the image is the “ad”; a medium that can be utilized to bemuse the masses–and success has been achieved. If the “movement” wants to compromise not just the image of Michelle Obama, but Michelle Obama herself, then the “movement” is on track–and the compromise that follows is irreversible. As an aside, Michelle’s in the compromising cross-hairs of the “movement” since she seems perfect for the role of a universal-Mammy.
The exchange is affectionate, and will always cause a pang, especially if the “movement” continues to target, specifically Blacks–moreover, [heteronormative] Black men. When it comes to the Black experience, there’s nothing that transcends the unsolved issue of racism because we [Blacks] are confronted with the face of oppression daily—everyday—every single day–of our lives. So, one can see an advantage that the “movement” would vampirically use against Blacks, in particular, the momentum Blacks muster up to make effective change. The “movement” understands the complications of racial dynamics of humane/inhumane sexuality–in part of the numerous Mandingo experiments stretching from decades past to this very day. The media’s reckless abandonment of moral decorum stands as testament but that same media will protect the reputation of anyone who has garnered public interest, good or bad (i.e., Kim Kardashian) since private behavior of days past is now open to public scrutiny and ethical contemplation. It ain’t hard to tell that if a particular kind of energy (read: currency) can be converted from the sexual into financial, then it’s game on for the “movement” because momentum (energy) is to money as influence is to power. The “movement” will not get fully behind a Stacey Abrams or a Andrew Gillum but the “movement” will financially influence their personal lives and personal life decisions which are the main factors for voters and the highly-impressionable voting mind, especially when an agenda is absent. The sniggering irony personified as a fabrication of rebellion against societal orders brought anew in part of the Trump-body political climate, the “movement” is empowered by the American acceptance of hypocritical derision. I do feel that there is a difference between gay and the LGBTQ “movement”; what that difference is, I haven’t the slightest clue since my heteronormative orientation cannot define nor observe what that difference would be in particular.
The “movement” is not comprised of hopeless romantics establishing an opposition to society and elders, rather, these LGBTQ skid marks are just another affront focused primarily on the elimination of all things heteronormative, and there’s nothing more heteronormative than the Black man. An ethnically-sympathetic white is just as ineffective against this infestation like an empty can of Raid®. Liberal sentimentality will fool the average “black” because, much like the Tabby Cat-morons on the other side of the Mississippi River, they seek acceptance from everyone except their very own. It’s a weakness gene.